Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2381

control, N = 1191

treatment, N = 1191

p-value2

age

236

51.30 ± 13.02 (23 - 75)

50.76 ± 13.39 (23 - 75)

51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75)

0.532

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

238

0.316

f

194 (82%)

94 (79%)

100 (84%)

m

44 (18%)

25 (21%)

19 (16%)

occupation

238

day_training

6 (2.5%)

2 (1.7%)

4 (3.4%)

full_time

26 (11%)

13 (11%)

13 (11%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (13%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.7%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.5%)

part_time

42 (18%)

23 (19%)

19 (16%)

retired

57 (24%)

26 (22%)

31 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.4%)

4 (3.4%)

4 (3.4%)

shelter

4 (1.7%)

4 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

student

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

t_and_e

4 (1.7%)

3 (2.5%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

53 (22%)

28 (24%)

25 (21%)

marital

238

0.875

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

divore

26 (11%)

14 (12%)

12 (10%)

in_relationship

4 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

married

71 (30%)

33 (28%)

38 (32%)

none

113 (47%)

58 (49%)

55 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.3%)

2 (1.7%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (8.0%)

10 (8.4%)

9 (7.6%)

edu

238

0.622

bachelor

48 (20%)

20 (17%)

28 (24%)

diploma

40 (17%)

24 (20%)

16 (13%)

hd_ad

6 (2.5%)

4 (3.4%)

2 (1.7%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

16 (6.7%)

9 (7.6%)

7 (5.9%)

primary

20 (8.4%)

9 (7.6%)

11 (9.2%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (10%)

secondary_4_5

65 (27%)

30 (25%)

35 (29%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.5%)

6 (5.0%)

7 (5.9%)

fam_income

238

10001_12000

8 (3.4%)

2 (1.7%)

6 (5.0%)

12001_14000

11 (4.6%)

4 (3.4%)

7 (5.9%)

14001_16000

12 (5.0%)

4 (3.4%)

8 (6.7%)

16001_18000

5 (2.1%)

3 (2.5%)

2 (1.7%)

18001_20000

10 (4.2%)

7 (5.9%)

3 (2.5%)

20001_above

40 (17%)

24 (20%)

16 (13%)

2001_4000

35 (15%)

17 (14%)

18 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (13%)

14 (12%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

21 (8.8%)

12 (10%)

9 (7.6%)

8001_10000

20 (8.4%)

11 (9.2%)

9 (7.6%)

below_2000

45 (19%)

21 (18%)

24 (20%)

medication

238

213 (89%)

106 (89%)

107 (90%)

0.833

onset_duration

236

15.15 ± 10.98 (0 - 63)

14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56)

15.47 ± 10.69 (0 - 63)

0.658

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

234

36.24 ± 14.75 (-18 - 72)

35.84 ± 13.75 (10 - 72)

36.63 ± 15.74 (-18 - 68)

0.682

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2381

control, N = 1191

treatment, N = 1191

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

238

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.456

recovery_stage_b

238

17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24)

18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24)

17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

0.677

ras_confidence

238

29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45)

29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45)

30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45)

0.671

ras_willingness

238

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15)

11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15)

0.763

ras_goal

238

17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)

17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

0.415

ras_reliance

238

13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)

13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)

13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20)

0.636

ras_domination

238

9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15)

9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)

0.211

symptom

238

30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70)

31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70)

30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56)

0.337

slof_work

238

22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30)

22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30)

22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)

0.748

slof_relationship

238

25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35)

24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35)

25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35)

0.286

satisfaction

238

20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35)

0.210

mhc_emotional

238

10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)

10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)

0.705

mhc_social

238

15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30)

15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30)

15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30)

0.974

mhc_psychological

238

21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36)

21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36)

21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36)

0.948

resilisnce

238

16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30)

0.214

social_provision

238

13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20)

13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)

0.050

els_value_living

238

17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)

16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25)

17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25)

0.370

els_life_fulfill

238

12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)

12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)

13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

0.128

els

238

29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45)

29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45)

30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45)

0.186

social_connect

238

27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48)

27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48)

26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48)

0.382

shs_agency

238

14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

0.149

shs_pathway

238

15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24)

15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24)

16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24)

0.080

shs

238

30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48)

29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48)

0.098

esteem

238

12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20)

12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20)

0.701

mlq_search

238

14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21)

14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)

15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)

0.182

mlq_presence

238

13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21)

13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21)

13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21)

0.496

mlq

238

28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42)

27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42)

28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42)

0.278

empower

238

19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30)

19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30)

0.377

ismi_resistance

238

14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

0.844

ismi_discrimation

238

11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)

11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)

11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20)

0.966

sss_affective

238

10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.727

sss_behavior

238

10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

0.759

sss_cognitive

238

8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)

8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.514

sss

238

29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54)

29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54)

29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54)

0.804

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.111

2.98, 3.42

group

control

treatment

-0.118

0.157

-0.426, 0.190

0.455

time_point

1st

2nd

0.033

0.146

-0.254, 0.319

0.824

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.311

0.209

-0.100, 0.721

0.140

Pseudo R square

0.009

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.273

17.5, 18.5

group

control

treatment

-0.160

0.386

-0.916, 0.597

0.679

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.217

0.277

-0.760, 0.326

0.435

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.870

0.398

0.089, 1.65

0.030

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.522

28.8, 30.8

group

control

treatment

0.311

0.739

-1.14, 1.76

0.674

time_point

1st

2nd

0.667

0.471

-0.257, 1.59

0.159

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.30

0.677

-0.023, 2.63

0.056

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.194

11.2, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.084

0.274

-0.453, 0.621

0.759

time_point

1st

2nd

0.064

0.205

-0.339, 0.467

0.756

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.316

0.295

-0.262, 0.894

0.286

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.305

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.353

0.431

-0.492, 1.20

0.414

time_point

1st

2nd

0.293

0.299

-0.293, 0.878

0.328

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.564

0.429

-0.277, 1.41

0.191

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.268

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.176

0.379

-0.567, 0.920

0.642

time_point

1st

2nd

0.249

0.250

-0.241, 0.740

0.321

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.570

0.360

-0.136, 1.27

0.115

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.0

0.222

9.58, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.395

0.315

-1.01, 0.222

0.210

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.026

0.249

-0.513, 0.462

0.918

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.885

0.357

0.185, 1.59

0.014

Pseudo R square

0.014

symptom

(Intercept)

31.4

0.911

29.6, 33.1

group

control

treatment

-1.24

1.289

-3.77, 1.28

0.335

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.06

0.781

-2.59, 0.465

0.175

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.314

1.122

-2.51, 1.89

0.780

Pseudo R square

0.008

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.420

21.4, 23.1

group

control

treatment

-0.193

0.594

-1.36, 0.970

0.745

time_point

1st

2nd

0.241

0.402

-0.547, 1.03

0.550

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.490

0.578

-0.642, 1.62

0.397

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.7

0.526

23.7, 25.7

group

control

treatment

0.798

0.743

-0.659, 2.26

0.284

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.107

0.501

-1.09, 0.875

0.831

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.785

0.720

-0.625, 2.20

0.277

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

0.663

18.6, 21.2

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.937

-0.660, 3.01

0.210

time_point

1st

2nd

0.847

0.606

-0.340, 2.03

0.164

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.336

0.870

-1.37, 2.04

0.700

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.8

0.343

10.1, 11.4

group

control

treatment

0.185

0.486

-0.767, 1.14

0.704

time_point

1st

2nd

0.383

0.291

-0.187, 0.953

0.190

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.118

0.418

-0.937, 0.701

0.778

Pseudo R square

0.002

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.3

0.561

14.2, 16.4

group

control

treatment

-0.025

0.794

-1.58, 1.53

0.975

time_point

1st

2nd

0.658

0.495

-0.312, 1.63

0.186

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.007

0.711

-1.40, 1.39

0.992

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.649

20.6, 23.1

group

control

treatment

0.059

0.917

-1.74, 1.86

0.949

time_point

1st

2nd

1.00

0.575

-0.122, 2.13

0.082

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.293

0.826

-1.91, 1.33

0.724

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.405

15.5, 17.1

group

control

treatment

0.723

0.573

-0.400, 1.84

0.208

time_point

1st

2nd

0.714

0.400

-0.070, 1.50

0.076

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.784

0.575

-0.344, 1.91

0.175

Pseudo R square

0.028

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.260

12.7, 13.8

group

control

treatment

0.706

0.368

-0.016, 1.43

0.056

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.180

0.256

-0.682, 0.322

0.483

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.503

0.368

-0.218, 1.22

0.173

Pseudo R square

0.026

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.293

16.3, 17.5

group

control

treatment

0.370

0.415

-0.443, 1.18

0.374

time_point

1st

2nd

0.347

0.282

-0.204, 0.899

0.219

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.316

0.405

-0.477, 1.11

0.436

Pseudo R square

0.012

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.5

0.306

11.9, 13.1

group

control

treatment

0.664

0.433

-0.184, 1.51

0.126

time_point

1st

2nd

0.234

0.275

-0.305, 0.773

0.397

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.321

0.395

-0.453, 1.10

0.417

Pseudo R square

0.017

els

(Intercept)

29.4

0.555

28.3, 30.5

group

control

treatment

1.03

0.785

-0.505, 2.57

0.189

time_point

1st

2nd

0.610

0.480

-0.331, 1.55

0.206

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.607

0.691

-0.747, 1.96

0.381

Pseudo R square

0.016

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.6

0.846

25.9, 29.2

group

control

treatment

-1.03

1.197

-3.38, 1.31

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.178

0.715

-1.58, 1.22

0.803

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.81

1.028

-4.83, -0.800

0.007

Pseudo R square

0.024

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.0

0.466

13.1, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.941

0.659

-0.350, 2.23

0.154

time_point

1st

2nd

0.343

0.391

-0.423, 1.11

0.381

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.458

0.562

-0.644, 1.56

0.417

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.377

14.7, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.958

0.533

-0.087, 2.00

0.074

time_point

1st

2nd

0.616

0.348

-0.065, 1.30

0.078

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.201

0.500

-0.778, 1.18

0.687

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.803

27.8, 31.0

group

control

treatment

1.90

1.136

-0.328, 4.13

0.096

time_point

1st

2nd

0.970

0.676

-0.355, 2.29

0.153

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.641

0.972

-1.26, 2.55

0.511

Pseudo R square

0.020

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.146

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.084

0.207

-0.490, 0.322

0.685

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.134

0.185

-0.496, 0.229

0.470

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.091

0.265

-0.429, 0.612

0.731

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.317

13.9, 15.1

group

control

treatment

0.605

0.449

-0.274, 1.48

0.178

time_point

1st

2nd

0.825

0.350

0.139, 1.51

0.019

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.731

0.502

-1.72, 0.253

0.147

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.387

12.6, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.378

0.547

-0.695, 1.45

0.490

time_point

1st

2nd

0.851

0.398

0.071, 1.63

0.034

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.054

0.572

-1.17, 1.07

0.924

Pseudo R square

0.011

mlq

(Intercept)

27.8

0.638

26.5, 29.0

group

control

treatment

0.983

0.903

-0.786, 2.75

0.277

time_point

1st

2nd

1.68

0.666

0.375, 2.99

0.013

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.783

0.957

-2.66, 1.09

0.415

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.416

18.2, 19.8

group

control

treatment

0.513

0.588

-0.639, 1.66

0.384

time_point

1st

2nd

0.856

0.389

0.093, 1.62

0.029

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.226

0.559

-1.32, 0.870

0.687

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.237

14.0, 14.9

group

control

treatment

-0.067

0.335

-0.724, 0.589

0.841

time_point

1st

2nd

0.286

0.278

-0.258, 0.831

0.304

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.593

0.399

-0.189, 1.37

0.139

Pseudo R square

0.015

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.283

11.2, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.017

0.400

-0.800, 0.767

0.966

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.443

0.325

-1.08, 0.195

0.175

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.646

0.467

-1.56, 0.269

0.168

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.340

9.74, 11.1

group

control

treatment

0.168

0.480

-0.773, 1.11

0.727

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.442

0.311

-1.05, 0.167

0.157

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.662

0.447

-1.54, 0.214

0.140

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.345

9.54, 10.9

group

control

treatment

-0.151

0.488

-1.11, 0.805

0.757

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.658

0.308

-1.26, -0.055

0.034

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.106

0.443

-0.973, 0.761

0.811

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.74

0.344

8.06, 9.41

group

control

treatment

0.328

0.487

-0.626, 1.28

0.501

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.535

0.312

-1.15, 0.076

0.088

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.580

0.448

-1.46, 0.298

0.197

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss

(Intercept)

29.4

0.970

27.5, 31.3

group

control

treatment

0.345

1.371

-2.34, 3.03

0.802

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.61

0.797

-3.17, -0.043

0.046

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.30

1.146

-3.55, 0.943

0.257

Pseudo R square

0.011

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(375) = 28.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(375) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32], t(375) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72], t(375) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(375) = 65.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.60], t(375) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.33], t(375) = -0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [0.09, 1.65], t(375) = 2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [0.03, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(375) = 57.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(375) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.59], t(375) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.63], t(375) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-4.06e-03, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(375) = 59.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(375) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.47], t(375) = 0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.89], t(375) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.82], t(375) = 56.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(375) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.88], t(375) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.41], t(375) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(375) = 49.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(375) = 0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.74], t(375) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.27], t(375) = 1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(375) = 45.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(375) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.46], t(375) = -0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [0.19, 1.59], t(375) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.08, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.57, 33.15], t(375) = 34.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.77, 1.28], t(375) = -0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.59, 0.47], t(375) = -1.36, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-2.51, 1.89], t(375) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.45, 23.09], t(375) = 53.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(375) = -0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.03], t(375) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.62], t(375) = 0.85, p = 0.396; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(375) = 46.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.26], t(375) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.87], t(375) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.20], t(375) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(375) = 30.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(375) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.03], t(375) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.04], t(375) = 0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.45], t(375) = 31.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.14], t(375) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.95], t(375) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.70], t(375) = -0.28, p = 0.778; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.24, 16.44], t(375) = 27.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(375) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.63], t(375) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.85e-03, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.39], t(375) = -9.63e-03, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -1.14e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(375) = 33.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.86], t(375) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.13], t(375) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.33], t(375) = -0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.09], t(375) = 40.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(375) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.50], t(375) = 1.78, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.91], t(375) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(375) = 50.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(375) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.46e-03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.32], t(375) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.22], t(375) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(375) = 57.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(375) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.90], t(375) = 1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.11], t(375) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(375) = 40.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(375) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.77], t(375) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.10], t(375) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.47], t(375) = 52.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.57], t(375) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.55], t(375) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.96], t(375) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(375) = 32.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(375) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.22], t(375) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.81, 95% CI [-4.83, -0.80], t(375) = -2.74, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.51, -0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(375) = 30.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(375) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.11], t(375) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.56], t(375) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(375) = 40.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.00], t(375) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.30], t(375) = 1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.18], t(375) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(375) = 36.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(375) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.29], t(375) = 1.43, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.55], t(375) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(375) = 87.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(375) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.23], t(375) = -0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61], t(375) = 0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(375) = 45.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(375) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [0.14, 1.51], t(375) = 2.36, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.04, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.25], t(375) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.55, 14.07], t(375) = 34.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(375) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [0.07, 1.63], t(375) = 2.14, p = 0.032; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.07], t(375) = -0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(375) = 43.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.75], t(375) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [0.37, 2.99], t(375) = 2.52, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.05, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.66, 1.09], t(375) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.19, 19.81], t(375) = 45.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.66], t(375) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.09, 1.62], t(375) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.87], t(375) = -0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(375) = 60.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(375) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.83], t(375) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.37], t(375) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(375) = 41.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.77], t(375) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.19], t(375) = -1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.27], t(375) = -1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(375) = 30.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(375) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.17], t(375) = -1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.21], t(375) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.89], t(375) = 29.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.81], t(375) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.26, -0.05], t(375) = -2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.76], t(375) = -0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.06, 9.41], t(375) = 25.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(375) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.08], t(375) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.30], t(375) = -1.29, p = 0.195; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.46, 31.26], t(375) = 30.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(375) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.04], t(375) = -2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -4.05e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-3.55, 0.94], t(375) = -1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,211.146

1,222.974

-602.573

1,205.146

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,211.899

1,235.556

-599.950

1,199.899

5.246

3

0.155

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,839.551

1,851.379

-916.775

1,833.551

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,839.652

1,863.309

-913.826

1,827.652

5.898

3

0.117

ras_confidence

null

3

2,317.410

2,329.238

-1,155.705

2,311.410

ras_confidence

random

6

2,304.881

2,328.538

-1,146.441

2,292.881

18.529

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,586.543

1,598.371

-790.271

1,580.543

ras_willingness

random

6

1,588.699

1,612.356

-788.349

1,576.699

3.844

3

0.279

ras_goal

null

3

1,919.546

1,931.374

-956.773

1,913.546

ras_goal

random

6

1,915.377

1,939.034

-951.689

1,903.377

10.169

3

0.017

ras_reliance

null

3

1,810.974

1,822.802

-902.487

1,804.974

ras_reliance

random

6

1,805.240

1,828.897

-896.620

1,793.240

11.733

3

0.008

ras_domination

null

3

1,711.898

1,723.727

-852.949

1,705.898

ras_domination

random

6

1,706.704

1,730.361

-847.352

1,694.704

11.194

3

0.011

symptom

null

3

2,715.480

2,727.308

-1,354.740

2,709.480

symptom

random

6

2,715.564

2,739.220

-1,351.782

2,703.564

5.916

3

0.116

slof_work

null

3

2,150.764

2,162.592

-1,072.382

2,144.764

slof_work

random

6

2,153.287

2,176.944

-1,070.643

2,141.287

3.477

3

0.324

slof_relationship

null

3

2,321.302

2,333.130

-1,157.651

2,315.302

slof_relationship

random

6

2,323.334

2,346.991

-1,155.667

2,311.334

3.968

3

0.265

satisfaction

null

3

2,490.794

2,502.623

-1,242.397

2,484.794

satisfaction

random

6

2,489.299

2,512.956

-1,238.649

2,477.299

7.495

3

0.058

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,965.424

1,977.252

-979.712

1,959.424

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,968.825

1,992.481

-978.412

1,956.825

2.599

3

0.458

mhc_social

null

3

2,350.780

2,362.608

-1,172.390

2,344.780

mhc_social

random

6

2,353.416

2,377.073

-1,170.708

2,341.416

3.363

3

0.339

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,463.451

2,475.279

-1,228.725

2,457.451

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,465.004

2,488.661

-1,226.502

2,453.004

4.446

3

0.217

resilisnce

null

3

2,146.516

2,158.345

-1,070.258

2,140.516

resilisnce

random

6

2,133.737

2,157.394

-1,060.868

2,121.737

18.780

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,798.146

1,809.974

-896.073

1,792.146

social_provision

random

6

1,796.025

1,819.682

-892.012

1,784.025

8.121

3

0.044

els_value_living

null

3

1,882.867

1,894.695

-938.433

1,876.867

els_value_living

random

6

1,880.823

1,904.480

-934.412

1,868.823

8.043

3

0.045

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,898.021

1,909.849

-946.010

1,892.021

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,896.132

1,919.789

-942.066

1,884.132

7.888

3

0.048

els

null

3

2,344.645

2,356.473

-1,169.322

2,338.645

els

random

6

2,340.548

2,364.205

-1,164.274

2,328.548

10.096

3

0.018

social_connect

null

3

2,668.017

2,679.845

-1,331.009

2,662.017

social_connect

random

6

2,655.408

2,679.065

-1,321.704

2,643.408

18.609

3

0.000

shs_agency

null

3

2,200.404

2,212.232

-1,097.202

2,194.404

shs_agency

random

6

2,198.865

2,222.522

-1,093.433

2,186.865

7.539

3

0.057

shs_pathway

null

3

2,068.152

2,079.981

-1,031.076

2,062.152

shs_pathway

random

6

2,061.997

2,085.653

-1,024.998

2,049.997

12.156

3

0.007

shs

null

3

2,619.657

2,631.485

-1,306.828

2,613.657

shs

random

6

2,614.788

2,638.444

-1,301.394

2,602.788

10.869

3

0.012

esteem

null

3

1,409.234

1,421.063

-701.617

1,403.234

esteem

random

6

1,414.582

1,438.238

-701.291

1,402.582

0.653

3

0.884

mlq_search

null

3

1,974.156

1,985.984

-984.078

1,968.156

mlq_search

random

6

1,973.843

1,997.500

-980.922

1,961.843

6.313

3

0.097

mlq_presence

null

3

2,111.574

2,123.403

-1,052.787

2,105.574

mlq_presence

random

6

2,108.998

2,132.655

-1,048.499

2,096.998

8.576

3

0.035

mlq

null

3

2,496.403

2,508.232

-1,245.202

2,490.403

mlq

random

6

2,493.823

2,517.479

-1,240.911

2,481.823

8.581

3

0.035

empower

null

3

2,141.695

2,153.523

-1,067.847

2,135.695

empower

random

6

2,139.935

2,163.592

-1,063.967

2,127.935

7.760

3

0.051

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,769.826

1,781.655

-881.913

1,763.826

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,765.344

1,789.001

-876.672

1,753.344

10.482

3

0.015

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,902.185

1,914.013

-948.092

1,896.185

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,895.691

1,919.348

-941.846

1,883.691

12.494

3

0.006

sss_affective

null

3

1,987.965

1,999.794

-990.983

1,981.965

sss_affective

random

6

1,980.324

2,003.981

-984.162

1,968.324

13.641

3

0.003

sss_behavior

null

3

1,990.447

2,002.275

-992.223

1,984.447

sss_behavior

random

6

1,986.062

2,009.719

-987.031

1,974.062

10.385

3

0.016

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,996.706

2,008.535

-995.353

1,990.706

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,987.878

2,011.535

-987.939

1,975.878

14.828

3

0.002

sss

null

3

2,762.337

2,774.166

-1,378.169

2,756.337

sss

random

6

2,752.175

2,775.832

-1,370.088

2,740.175

16.162

3

0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

119

3.20 ± 1.21

119

3.08 ± 1.21

0.455

0.125

recovery_stage_a

2nd

74

3.23 ± 1.18

-0.034

69

3.43 ± 1.17

-0.364

0.327

-0.205

recovery_stage_b

1st

119

18.01 ± 2.98

119

17.85 ± 2.98

0.679

0.092

recovery_stage_b

2nd

74

17.79 ± 2.73

0.124

69

18.50 ± 2.70

-0.375

0.118

-0.407

ras_confidence

1st

119

29.82 ± 5.70

119

30.13 ± 5.70

0.674

-0.106

ras_confidence

2nd

74

30.48 ± 5.09

-0.227

69

32.10 ± 5.02

-0.670

0.057

-0.549

ras_willingness

1st

119

11.61 ± 2.11

119

11.70 ± 2.11

0.759

-0.065

ras_willingness

2nd

74

11.68 ± 1.95

-0.049

69

12.08 ± 1.93

-0.293

0.219

-0.309

ras_goal

1st

119

17.23 ± 3.33

119

17.58 ± 3.33

0.414

-0.188

ras_goal

2nd

74

17.52 ± 3.02

-0.156

69

18.44 ± 2.99

-0.457

0.069

-0.489

ras_reliance

1st

119

13.16 ± 2.92

119

13.34 ± 2.92

0.642

-0.113

ras_reliance

2nd

74

13.41 ± 2.63

-0.159

69

14.16 ± 2.60

-0.523

0.089

-0.476

ras_domination

1st

119

10.02 ± 2.43

119

9.62 ± 2.43

0.210

0.250

ras_domination

2nd

74

9.99 ± 2.27

0.016

69

10.48 ± 2.25

-0.545

0.196

-0.311

symptom

1st

119

31.36 ± 9.94

119

30.12 ± 9.94

0.335

0.256

symptom

2nd

74

30.30 ± 8.79

0.219

69

28.74 ± 8.65

0.284

0.287

0.321

slof_work

1st

119

22.27 ± 4.58

119

22.08 ± 4.58

0.745

0.077

slof_work

2nd

74

22.51 ± 4.14

-0.096

69

22.81 ± 4.09

-0.290

0.666

-0.118

slof_relationship

1st

119

24.68 ± 5.73

119

25.48 ± 5.73

0.284

-0.255

slof_relationship

2nd

74

24.57 ± 5.18

0.034

69

26.16 ± 5.11

-0.216

0.067

-0.505

satisfaction

1st

119

19.90 ± 7.23

119

21.08 ± 7.23

0.210

-0.311

satisfaction

2nd

74

20.75 ± 6.47

-0.224

69

22.26 ± 6.38

-0.313

0.160

-0.400

mhc_emotional

1st

119

10.77 ± 3.75

119

10.96 ± 3.75

0.704

-0.102

mhc_emotional

2nd

74

11.16 ± 3.31

-0.212

69

11.22 ± 3.25

-0.146

0.903

-0.037

mhc_social

1st

119

15.34 ± 6.12

119

15.32 ± 6.12

0.975

0.008

mhc_social

2nd

74

16.00 ± 5.44

-0.213

69

15.97 ± 5.36

-0.211

0.972

0.010

mhc_psychological

1st

119

21.84 ± 7.07

119

21.90 ± 7.07

0.949

-0.016

mhc_psychological

2nd

74

22.84 ± 6.30

-0.280

69

22.61 ± 6.20

-0.199

0.823

0.065

resilisnce

1st

119

16.29 ± 4.42

119

17.02 ± 4.42

0.208

-0.287

resilisnce

2nd

74

17.01 ± 4.02

-0.284

69

18.51 ± 3.97

-0.596

0.025

-0.599

social_provision

1st

119

13.24 ± 2.84

119

13.95 ± 2.84

0.056

-0.439

social_provision

2nd

74

13.06 ± 2.58

0.112

69

14.27 ± 2.55

-0.201

0.005

-0.752

els_value_living

1st

119

16.88 ± 3.20

119

17.25 ± 3.20

0.374

-0.210

els_value_living

2nd

74

17.23 ± 2.89

-0.197

69

17.92 ± 2.86

-0.376

0.155

-0.389

els_life_fulfill

1st

119

12.50 ± 3.34

119

13.17 ± 3.34

0.126

-0.387

els_life_fulfill

2nd

74

12.74 ± 2.98

-0.136

69

13.72 ± 2.94

-0.323

0.047

-0.574

els

1st

119

29.39 ± 6.06

119

30.42 ± 6.06

0.189

-0.345

els

2nd

74

30.00 ± 5.37

-0.204

69

31.64 ± 5.28

-0.407

0.066

-0.548

social_connect

1st

119

27.56 ± 9.23

119

26.53 ± 9.23

0.389

0.232

social_connect

2nd

74

27.38 ± 8.14

0.040

69

23.54 ± 8.01

0.673

0.005

0.865

shs_agency

1st

119

13.97 ± 5.08

119

14.92 ± 5.08

0.154

-0.387

shs_agency

2nd

74

14.32 ± 4.48

-0.141

69

15.72 ± 4.40

-0.329

0.060

-0.575

shs_pathway

1st

119

15.43 ± 4.11

119

16.39 ± 4.11

0.074

-0.441

shs_pathway

2nd

74

16.05 ± 3.69

-0.284

69

17.20 ± 3.64

-0.377

0.059

-0.534

shs

1st

119

29.40 ± 8.76

119

31.30 ± 8.76

0.096

-0.452

shs

2nd

74

30.37 ± 7.72

-0.231

69

32.91 ± 7.60

-0.383

0.048

-0.604

esteem

1st

119

12.80 ± 1.60

119

12.71 ± 1.60

0.685

0.071

esteem

2nd

74

12.66 ± 1.54

0.113

69

12.67 ± 1.53

0.036

0.977

-0.006

mlq_search

1st

119

14.49 ± 3.46

119

15.09 ± 3.46

0.178

-0.273

mlq_search

2nd

74

15.31 ± 3.23

-0.372

69

15.19 ± 3.20

-0.042

0.815

0.057

mlq_presence

1st

119

13.31 ± 4.22

119

13.69 ± 4.22

0.490

-0.151

mlq_presence

2nd

74

14.16 ± 3.88

-0.340

69

14.49 ± 3.84

-0.318

0.616

-0.129

mlq

1st

119

27.80 ± 6.96

119

28.78 ± 6.96

0.277

-0.234

mlq

2nd

74

29.48 ± 6.42

-0.400

69

29.68 ± 6.35

-0.214

0.851

-0.048

empower

1st

119

19.00 ± 4.53

119

19.51 ± 4.53

0.384

-0.211

empower

2nd

74

19.86 ± 4.08

-0.352

69

20.14 ± 4.03

-0.259

0.672

-0.118

ismi_resistance

1st

119

14.42 ± 2.58

119

14.35 ± 2.58

0.841

0.038

ismi_resistance

2nd

74

14.71 ± 2.45

-0.162

69

15.23 ± 2.43

-0.496

0.199

-0.297

ismi_discrimation

1st

119

11.76 ± 3.08

119

11.74 ± 3.08

0.966

0.008

ismi_discrimation

2nd

74

11.31 ± 2.91

0.214

69

10.65 ± 2.89

0.527

0.172

0.321

sss_affective

1st

119

10.40 ± 3.70

119

10.57 ± 3.70

0.727

-0.087

sss_affective

2nd

74

9.96 ± 3.32

0.228

69

9.47 ± 3.27

0.568

0.371

0.254

sss_behavior

1st

119

10.22 ± 3.76

119

10.07 ± 3.76

0.757

0.079

sss_behavior

2nd

74

9.56 ± 3.35

0.343

69

9.30 ± 3.31

0.398

0.645

0.134

sss_cognitive

1st

119

8.74 ± 3.76

119

9.07 ± 3.76

0.501

-0.168

sss_cognitive

2nd

74

8.20 ± 3.36

0.275

69

7.95 ± 3.31

0.573

0.651

0.130

sss

1st

119

29.36 ± 10.58

119

29.71 ± 10.58

0.802

-0.070

sss

2nd

74

27.76 ± 9.28

0.324

69

26.80 ± 9.13

0.587

0.534

0.194

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(339.18) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)

2st

t(376.94) = 0.98, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.58)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(291.97) = -0.41, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)

2st

t(369.41) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.60)

ras_confidence

1st

t(278.35) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)

2st

t(359.49) = 1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.05 to 3.28)

ras_willingness

1st

t(298.06) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.62)

2st

t(371.96) = 1.23, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.04)

ras_goal

1st

t(287.35) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)

2st

t(366.82) = 1.82, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.91)

ras_reliance

1st

t(281.91) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)

2st

t(362.81) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.61)

ras_domination

1st

t(306.54) = -1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)

2st

t(374.29) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.23)

symptom

1st

t(273.56) = -0.96, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.29)

2st

t(354.00) = -1.07, p = 0.287, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.43 to 1.31)

slof_work

1st

t(284.70) = -0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.98)

2st

t(365.01) = 0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.65)

slof_relationship

1st

t(284.10) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.26)

2st

t(364.56) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.28)

satisfaction

1st

t(279.64) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)

2st

t(360.76) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.60 to 3.63)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(272.57) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)

2st

t(352.69) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.15)

mhc_social

1st

t(276.14) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)

2st

t(357.12) = -0.04, p = 0.972, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.75)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(276.62) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.86)

2st

t(357.66) = -0.22, p = 0.823, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.82)

resilisnce

1st

t(288.55) = 1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.85)

2st

t(367.55) = 2.25, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.82)

social_provision

1st

t(287.83) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)

2st

t(367.11) = 2.81, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.05)

els_value_living

1st

t(284.94) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)

2st

t(365.18) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.63)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(278.02) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)

2st

t(359.16) = 1.99, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.96)

els

1st

t(274.45) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)

2st

t(355.11) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.39)

social_connect

1st

t(272.38) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)

2st

t(352.43) = -2.85, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-6.50 to -1.19)

shs_agency

1st

t(271.93) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.24)

2st

t(351.81) = 1.88, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.86)

shs_pathway

1st

t(280.51) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.01)

2st

t(361.58) = 1.89, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.37)

shs

1st

t(272.07) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)

2st

t(352.00) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.02 to 5.06)

esteem

1st

t(330.19) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)

2st

t(376.74) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.51)

mlq_search

1st

t(304.16) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)

2st

t(373.76) = -0.23, p = 0.815, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.93)

mlq_presence

1st

t(293.58) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.46)

2st

t(370.17) = 0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.59)

mlq

1st

t(295.68) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)

2st

t(371.07) = 0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.90 to 2.30)

empower

1st

t(282.17) = 0.87, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.67)

2st

t(363.02) = 0.42, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.62)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(315.12) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.59)

2st

t(375.67) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.33)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(311.57) = -0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)

2st

t(375.20) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.29)

sss_affective

1st

t(279.86) = 0.35, p = 0.727, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.11)

2st

t(360.97) = -0.90, p = 0.371, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.59)

sss_behavior

1st

t(277.26) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)

2st

t(358.35) = -0.46, p = 0.645, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.84)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(278.69) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)

2st

t(359.84) = -0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.84)

sss

1st

t(270.21) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.04)

2st

t(349.31) = -0.62, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.99 to 2.07)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(185.51) = 2.28, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.05 to 0.64)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(164.17) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.22)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(158.51) = 4.05, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.01 to 2.93)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(166.74) = 1.79, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(162.25) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.47)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(159.99) = 3.17, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(170.37) = 3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(156.54) = -1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.97 to 0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(161.14) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(160.90) = 1.31, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.70)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(159.05) = 1.89, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.42)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(156.13) = 0.88, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(157.60) = 1.27, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.66)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(157.80) = 1.20, p = 0.465, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.89)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(162.74) = 3.62, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.31)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(162.44) = 1.22, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.85)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(161.24) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(158.38) = 1.95, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.12)

els

1st vs 2st

t(156.90) = 2.45, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.20)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(156.05) = -4.05, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.45 to -1.53)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(155.87) = 1.98, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(159.41) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.53)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(155.93) = 2.30, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.99)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(181.06) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.33)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(169.34) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(164.85) = 1.94, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.61)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(165.73) = 1.30, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.26)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(160.09) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.42)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(174.12) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.44)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(172.56) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.43)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(159.14) = -3.44, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.47)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(158.06) = -2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.14)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(158.66) = -3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(155.16) = -3.53, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.54 to -1.28)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(180.74) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.32)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(161.73) = -0.78, p = 0.872, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(156.69) = 1.41, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.60)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(164.02) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.47)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(160.02) = 0.98, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.88)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(158.00) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.74)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(167.25) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.47)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(154.93) = -1.36, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.61 to 0.48)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(159.03) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.04)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(158.81) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.88)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(157.16) = 1.40, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.04)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(154.56) = 1.32, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.96)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(155.88) = 1.33, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.64)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(156.05) = 1.75, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.14)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(160.46) = 1.78, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.51)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(160.19) = -0.70, p = 0.967, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.33)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(159.12) = 1.23, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.90)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(156.57) = 0.85, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.78)

els

1st vs 2st

t(155.25) = 1.27, p = 0.413, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.56)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(154.49) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.24)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(154.33) = 0.88, p = 0.764, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.12)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(157.49) = 1.77, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.30)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(154.38) = 1.43, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.31)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(176.78) = -0.72, p = 0.942, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.23)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(166.34) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.52)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(162.34) = 2.14, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.64)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(163.12) = 2.52, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.36 to 3.00)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(158.10) = 2.20, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.63)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(170.60) = 1.03, p = 0.610, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.84)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(169.20) = -1.36, p = 0.352, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.20)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(157.24) = -1.42, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.17)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(156.29) = -2.14, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.27 to -0.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(156.81) = -1.71, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(153.69) = -2.01, p = 0.092, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.18 to -0.03)

Plot

Clinical significance